Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This is the initial office action based on the application filed on December 21st, 2022, which claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application and have been examined below, of which, claims 1, 9, and 16 are presented in independent form.
Internet E-mail
A written authorization by Applicant is required for the Examiner to respond via
internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the
confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U3.0. 122, such as proposed Examiner’s
Amendments or interview agenda items (MPEP 502.03; See Internet Usage Policy, 64
PR 33056 (June 21, 1999)). To authorize e-mail communications from the Examiner
(e.g. proposed Examiner’s Amendments), the Applicant must place a written
authorization in the record. Applicant may authorize electronic and email communication
by the Examiner via PTO Automated Interview Request web service. To schedule an
interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request
(AER) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed on December 21st, 2022 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98. The complied IDS has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-7, 9-11, 13-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kataria et al. (Pub. No.: US 2022/0027519 – hereinafter, Kataria) in view of Baek et al. (Pub. No.: US 2016/0198518 – hereinafter, Baek).
Regarding claim 1:
Kataria discloses a host processor (FIG. 9 - 910) comprising:
at least one core to execute instructions (FIG. 9 and associated, such as, “Processor complex 910, in some embodiments, may include a plurality of general and/or special purpose processor cores as well as supporting circuits for managing, e.g., power signals, clock signals, and memory requests. In addition, processor complex 910 may include one or more levels of cache memory to fulfill memory requests issued by included processor cores” (See para [0109])); and
a configuration circuit coupled to the at least one core (FIG. 9 and associated, such as, “Processor complex 910, in some embodiments, may include a plurality of general and/or special purpose processor cores as well as supporting circuits for managing, e.g., power signals, clock signals, and memory requests. In addition, processor complex 910 may include one or more levels of cache memory to fulfill memory requests issued by included processor cores” (See para [0109])), wherein the configuration circuit:
in response to identification of a first device capable of debugging a second device, is to configure a switch to enable [[device-to-device]] messaging between the first device and the second device, the [[device-to-device]] messaging comprising at least one of debug messaging or test messaging (“a debug circuit configured to implement one or more debug features for the one or more functional circuits, and a validation circuit. The validation circuit is configured to receive a request to access debug features, and to send an identification value corresponding to the apparatus. The validation circuit is further configured to receive a certificate generated by a server computer system, the certificate including encoded debug permissions, and to decode the debug permissions using the identification value. Using the decoded debug permissions, the validation circuit is further configured to enable one or more of the debug features.” (See para [0004]). FIG. 1 and associated text, such as, “To initiate a debug session, debug system 110 is configured to send, to device 105, request 130 to access debug features of the device, the debug features enabled through use of debug circuit 120. Validation circuit 122, included in device 105, is configured to receive request 130, and in response, send an identification value that corresponds to device 105 to debug system 110. The identification value may include any suitable value that uniquely identifies device 105 from other device similar to device 105, such as a unique identification number (UID).” (See para [0029])).
But Kataria does not explicitly teach:
enable device-to-device messaging between the first device and the second device.
However, Baek discloses:
enable device-to-device messaging between the first device and the second device (“the present invention provides a method for a base station to switch between paths in a wireless communication system configured to support device-to-device (D2D) communication including: receiving, from a first terminal, a measurement report including a D2D identification (D2D ID) of a second terminal that performs D2D communication with the first terminal” (See para [0009])).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Baek into the teachings of Kataria because that would have provided a method and an apparatus for switching between paths in a wireless communication system for supporting device-to-device (D2D) communication as suggested by Baek (See para [0007]) to avoid data congestion to host device (see para [0002]).
Regarding claim 2:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Kataria further discloses wherein via the configuration of the switch, the host processor is to offload to the first device at least one of debug or test of the second device (FIG. 1 and associated text, such as, “Validation circuit 122 is further configured to end an active debug session in response to a determination that the particular amount of time has expired since receiving certificate 135. In addition, validation circuit 122 may be further configured to end an active debug session in response to a determination that a number of allowed device resets, as indicated by certificate 135, have occurred. The user may terminate the current debug session by sending, via debug system 110, a termination command, and/or by disconnecting a communication link (e.g., pulling a universal serial bus (USB) cable from debug system 110 and/or device 105).” (see para [0035])).
Regarding claim 3:
The rejection of claim 2 is incorporated, Kataria further discloses wherein the host processor is to execute a first workload during the debug or the test of the second device, the debug or the test of the second device independent of the first workload (FIG. 1 and associated text, such as, “Validation circuit 122 is further configured to end an active debug session in response to a determination that the particular amount of time has expired since receiving certificate 135. In addition, validation circuit 122 may be further configured to end an active debug session in response to a determination that a number of allowed device resets, as indicated by certificate 135, have occurred. The user may terminate the current debug session by sending, via debug system 110, a termination command, and/or by disconnecting a communication link (e.g., pulling a universal serial bus (USB) cable from debug system 110 and/or device 105).” (see para [0035])).
Regarding claim 4:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Kataria further discloses wherein the host processor is to authenticate the first device and in response to authentication of the first device, the configuration circuit is to configure the switch to enable the device-to-device messaging (FIG. 1 and associated text, such as, “After receiving request 133, server computer system 115 uses the included information to authenticate a user of debug system 110. Server computer system 115 uses user credentials 512 to identify and authenticate the user of debug system 110. After a successful authentication, server computer system 115 uses the identity of the user and the device information to identify relevant policies in policies 420. Policies 420 includes one or more policies that are used by server computer system 115 to determine which debug features of device 105 the user will be permitted to access.” (See para [0078])).
Regarding claim 5:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Kataria further discloses wherein the host processor is to read capability information of the first device, the capability information comprising a debug control capability (FIG. 1 and associated text, such as, “After receiving request 133, server computer system 115 uses the included information to authenticate a user of debug system 110. Server computer system 115 uses user credentials 512 to identify and authenticate the user of debug system 110. After a successful authentication, server computer system 115 uses the identity of the user and the device information to identify relevant policies in policies 420. Policies 420 includes one or more policies that are used by server computer system 115 to determine which debug features of device 105 the user will be permitted to access.” (See para [0078])).
Regarding claim 6:
The rejection of claim 5 is incorporated, Kataria further discloses wherein the configuration circuit is to configure the switch to enable the [[device-to-device]] messaging based at least in part on the debug control capability (FIG. 1 and associated text, such as, “The determination that a second computing device has been connected to device 105 may be using a variety of techniques. For example, debug interface 226 may include circuits capable of detecting a switch between cables that are physically coupled to device 105. The act of disconnecting and reconnecting cables may generate one or more anomalies that are detected by such circuits in debug interface 226. In other attacks, a cable used to connect device 105 to debug system 110 may include electronic switching circuits that, when activated, re-route communications to a computer system of the second party. In such cases, impedances between device 105 and the computer system of the second party may be different than when debug system 110 was connected. Debug interface 226 may be capable of detecting such impedance changes, for example, by differences in received voltage levels and/or timing of transitions on received signals” (see para [0051])).
But Kataria does not explicitly teach:
device-to-device messaging.
However, Baek discloses:
device-to-device messaging (“the present invention provides a method for a base station to switch between paths in a wireless communication system configured to support device-to-device (D2D) communication including: receiving, from a first terminal, a measurement report including a D2D identification (D2D ID) of a second terminal that performs D2D communication with the first terminal” (See para [0009])).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Baek into the teachings of Kataria because that would have provided a method and an apparatus for switching between paths in a wireless communication system for supporting device-to-device (D2D) communication as suggested by Baek (See para [0007]).
Regarding claim 7:
The rejection of claim 5 is incorporated, Kataria further discloses wherein the host processor is to read the capability information present in at least one transaction layer packet, the transaction layer packet comprising a vendor defined message comprising a debug offload indicator to indicate that the first device is enabled to be a debug controller (FIG. 1 and associated text, such as, “Validation circuit 122 is further configured to end an active debug session in response to a determination that the particular amount of time has expired since receiving certificate 135. In addition, validation circuit 122 may be further configured to end an active debug session in response to a determination that a number of allowed device resets, as indicated by certificate 135, have occurred. The user may terminate the current debug session by sending, via debug system 110, a termination command, and/or by disconnecting a communication link (e.g., pulling a universal serial bus (USB) cable from debug system 110 and/or device 105).” (see para [0035])).
Regarding claim 9:
Kataria discloses a method comprising:
receiving, in a switch coupled to a first device, a second device, and a host processor, a configuration message to enable [[device-to-device]] messaging between the first device and the second device (“a debug circuit configured to implement one or more debug features for the one or more functional circuits, and a validation circuit. The validation circuit is configured to receive a request to access debug features, and to send an identification value corresponding to the apparatus. The validation circuit is further configured to receive a certificate generated by a server computer system, the certificate including encoded debug permissions, and to decode the debug permissions using the identification value. Using the decoded debug permissions, the validation circuit is further configured to enable one or more of the debug features.” (See para [0004]). FIG. 1 and associated text, such as, “To initiate a debug session, debug system 110 is configured to send, to device 105, request 130 to access debug features of the device, the debug features enabled through use of debug circuit 120. Validation circuit 122, included in device 105, is configured to receive request 130, and in response, send an identification value that corresponds to device 105 to debug system 110. The identification value may include any suitable value that uniquely identifies device 105 from other device similar to device 105, such as a unique identification number (UID).” (See para [0029]));
receiving, from the first device, a debug command message and providing at least a portion of the debug command message to the second device to cause the second device to enter into a debug mode (FIG. 1 and associated text, such as, “To initiate a debug session, debug system 110 is configured to send, to device 105, request 130 to access debug features of the device, the debug features enabled through use of debug circuit 120. Validation circuit 122, included in device 105, is configured to receive request 130, and in response, send an identification value that corresponds to device 105 to debug system 110. The identification value may include any suitable value that uniquely identifies device 105 from other device similar to device 105, such as a unique identification number (UID).” (See para [0029])); and
communicating debug traffic between the first device and the second device and not communicating the debug traffic to the host processor (“In some circumstances, it may be desirable for a controller to direct the actions of individual switch modules within a distributed switch. For example, if logic on a switch module detects that the link for one of its ports port has gone offline, the logic could disable traffic for the port until the link is reset. However, downstream switch modules and devices that have not yet discovered the link is offline could continue attempting to send traffic to the switch module over the link. In such a scenario, it may be desirable for a controller (e.g., controller logic on the switch module) to direct the actions of the downstream switch modules and devices to suspend traffic over the link, at least until the link is reset.” (See para [0016])).
But Kataria does not explicitly teach:
device-to-device messaging.
However, Baek discloses:
device-to-device messaging (“the present invention provides a method for a base station to switch between paths in a wireless communication system configured to support device-to-device (D2D) communication including: receiving, from a first terminal, a measurement report including a D2D identification (D2D ID) of a second terminal that performs D2D communication with the first terminal” (See para [0009])).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Baek into the teachings of Kataria because that would have provided a method and an apparatus for switching between paths in a wireless communication system for supporting device-to-device (D2D) communication as suggested by Baek (See para [0007]) to avoid data congestion to host device (see para [0002]).
.
Regarding claim 10:
The rejection of claim 9 is incorporated, Kataria further comprising receiving, in the switch, the configuration message from the host processor (“a debug circuit configured to implement one or more debug features for the one or more functional circuits, and a validation circuit. The validation circuit is configured to receive a request to access debug features, and to send an identification value corresponding to the apparatus. The validation circuit is further configured to receive a certificate generated by a server computer system, the certificate including encoded debug permissions, and to decode the debug permissions using the identification value. Using the decoded debug permissions, the validation circuit is further configured to enable one or more of the debug features.” (See para [0004])).
Regarding claim 11:
The rejection of claim 9 is incorporated, Kataria further comprising receiving, in the switch, the configuration message from the host processor, in response to the host processor authenticating in the first device as a debug controller (FIG. 1 and associated text, such as, “After receiving request 133, server computer system 115 uses the included information to authenticate a user of debug system 110. Server computer system 115 uses user credentials 512 to identify and authenticate the user of debug system 110. After a successful authentication, server computer system 115 uses the identity of the user and the device information to identify relevant policies in policies 420. Policies 420 includes one or more policies that are used by server computer system 115 to determine which debug features of device 105 the user will be permitted to access.” (See para [0078])).
Regarding claim 13:
The rejection of claim 12 is incorporated, Kataria further comprising receiving, in the switch, capability information from the first device, the capability information to indicate a debug offload capability of the first device (FIG. 1 and associated text, such as, “Validation circuit 122 is further configured to end an active debug session in response to a determination that the particular amount of time has expired since receiving certificate 135. In addition, validation circuit 122 may be further configured to end an active debug session in response to a determination that a number of allowed device resets, as indicated by certificate 135, have occurred. The user may terminate the current debug session by sending, via debug system 110, a termination command, and/or by disconnecting a communication link (e.g., pulling a universal serial bus (USB) cable from debug system 110 and/or device 105).” (see para [0035])).
Regarding claim 14:
The rejection of claim 13 is incorporated, Kataria further comprising receiving, in the switch, the capability information from the first device, the capability information further to indicate one or more supported debug features and one or more supported debug protocols (FIG. 1 and associated text, such as, “After receiving request 133, server computer system 115 uses the included information to authenticate a user of debug system 110. Server computer system 115 uses user credentials 512 to identify and authenticate the user of debug system 110. After a successful authentication, server computer system 115 uses the identity of the user and the device information to identify relevant policies in policies 420. Policies 420 includes one or more policies that are used by server computer system 115 to determine which debug features of device 105 the user will be permitted to access.” (See para [0078])).
Regarding claim 15:
The rejection of claim 9 is incorporated, Kataria further comprising receiving, in the switch, debug data from the second device and sending the debug data to the first device via the switch and without involvement of the host processor (“In some circumstances, it may be desirable for a controller to direct the actions of individual switch modules within a distributed switch. For example, if logic on a switch module detects that the link for one of its ports port has gone offline, the logic could disable traffic for the port until the link is reset. However, downstream switch modules and devices that have not yet discovered the link is offline could continue attempting to send traffic to the switch module over the link. In such a scenario, it may be desirable for a controller (e.g., controller logic on the switch module) to direct the actions of the downstream switch modules and devices to suspend traffic over the link, at least until the link is reset.” (See para [0016])).
Regarding claim 16:
Kataria discloses a system comprising:
a host processor comprising one or more cores (FIG. 1 and associated text, such as, “For example, device 105 may include several processor cores, such as a main processing complex, an audio processor, a graphics processor, a network processor, and other functional circuits that are capable of being accessed by debug circuit 120.” (See para [0030]));
a switch coupled to the host processor (FIG. 1 and associated text, such as, “The determination that a second computing device has been connected to device 105 may be using a variety of techniques. For example, debug interface 226 may include circuits capable of detecting a switch between cables that are physically coupled to device 105. The act of disconnecting and reconnecting cables may generate one or more anomalies that are detected by such circuits in debug interface 226. In other attacks, a cable used to connect device 105 to debug system 110 may include electronic switching circuits that, when activated, re-route communications to a computer system of the second party. In such cases, impedances between device 105 and the computer system of the second party may be different than when debug system 110 was connected. Debug interface 226 may be capable of detecting such impedance changes, for example, by differences in received voltage levels and/or timing of transitions on received signals” (see para [0051]));
a first device coupled to the switch, the first device comprising a debug circuit to operate as a debug controller (FIG. 1 and associated text, such as, “The determination that a second computing device has been connected to device 105 may be using a variety of techniques. For example, debug interface 226 may include circuits capable of detecting a switch between cables that are physically coupled to device 105. The act of disconnecting and reconnecting cables may generate one or more anomalies that are detected by such circuits in debug interface 226. In other attacks, a cable used to connect device 105 to debug system 110 may include electronic switching circuits that, when activated, re-route communications to a computer system of the second party. In such cases, impedances between device 105 and the computer system of the second party may be different than when debug system 110 was connected. Debug interface 226 may be capable of detecting such impedance changes, for example, by differences in received voltage levels and/or timing of transitions on received signals” (see para [0051])); and
a second device coupled to the switch, wherein the debug circuit is to debug the second device via [[device-to-device]] messaging communicated between the first device and the second device through the switch, without involvement of the host processor (FIG. 1 and associated text, such as, “The determination that a second computing device has been connected to device 105 may be using a variety of techniques. For example, debug interface 226 may include circuits capable of detecting a switch between cables that are physically coupled to device 105. The act of disconnecting and reconnecting cables may generate one or more anomalies that are detected by such circuits in debug interface 226. In other attacks, a cable used to connect device 105 to debug system 110 may include electronic switching circuits that, when activated, re-route communications to a computer system of the second party. In such cases, impedances between device 105 and the computer system of the second party may be different than when debug system 110 was connected. Debug interface 226 may be capable of detecting such impedance changes, for example, by differences in received voltage levels and/or timing of transitions on received signals” (see para [0051])).
But Kataria does not explicitly teach:
device-to-device messaging.
However, Baek discloses:
device-to-device messaging (“the present invention provides a method for a base station to switch between paths in a wireless communication system configured to support device-to-device (D2D) communication including: receiving, from a first terminal, a measurement report including a D2D identification (D2D ID) of a second terminal that performs D2D communication with the first terminal” (See para [0009])).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Baek into the teachings of Kataria because that would have provided a method and an apparatus for switching between paths in a wireless communication system for supporting device-to-device (D2D) communication as suggested by Baek (See para [0007]) to avoid data congestion to host device (see para [0002]).
.
Regarding claim 20:
The rejection of claim 16 is incorporated, Kataria further discloses wherein the switch is to engage in a plurality of [[device-to-device]] debug sessions concurrently (FIG. 1 and associated text, such as, “The determination that a second computing device has been connected to device 105 may be using a variety of techniques. For example, debug interface 226 may include circuits capable of detecting a switch between cables that are physically coupled to device 105. The act of disconnecting and reconnecting cables may generate one or more anomalies that are detected by such circuits in debug interface 226. In other attacks, a cable used to connect device 105 to debug system 110 may include electronic switching circuits that, when activated, re-route communications to a computer system of the second party. In such cases, impedances between device 105 and the computer system of the second party may be different than when debug system 110 was connected. Debug interface 226 may be capable of detecting such impedance changes, for example, by differences in received voltage levels and/or timing of transitions on received signals” (see para [0051])).
But Kataria does not explicitly teach:
device-to-device messaging.
However, Baek discloses:
device-to-device messaging (“the present invention provides a method for a base station to switch between paths in a wireless communication system configured to support device-to-device (D2D) communication including: receiving, from a first terminal, a measurement report including a D2D identification (D2D ID) of a second terminal that performs D2D communication with the first terminal” (See para [0009])).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Baek into the teachings of Kataria because that would have provided a method and an apparatus for switching between paths in a wireless communication system for supporting device-to-device (D2D) communication as suggested by Baek (See para [0007]).
Claims 8, 12, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kataria in view of Baek as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Freking et al. (Pub. No.: US 2014/0351484 – hereinafter, Freking).
Regarding claim 8:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Kataria further discloses wherein the configuration circuit is to configure the switch to enable the [[device-to-device]] messaging via a sideband link coupled between the host processor and the switch (FIG. 1 and associated text, such as, “The determination that a second computing device has been connected to device 105 may be using a variety of techniques. For example, debug interface 226 may include circuits capable of detecting a switch between cables that are physically coupled to device 105. The act of disconnecting and reconnecting cables may generate one or more anomalies that are detected by such circuits in debug interface 226. In other attacks, a cable used to connect device 105 to debug system 110 may include electronic switching circuits that, when activated, re-route communications to a computer system of the second party. In such cases, impedances between device 105 and the computer system of the second party may be different than when debug system 110 was connected. Debug interface 226 may be capable of detecting such impedance changes, for example, by differences in received voltage levels and/or timing of transitions on received signals” (see para [0051])), [[wherein the switch is to couple to the host processor via a Peripheral Component Interconnect Express (PCIe) link]].
But Kataria does not explicitly teach:
device-to-device messaging.
However, Baek discloses:
device-to-device messaging (“the present invention provides a method for a base station to switch between paths in a wireless communication system configured to support device-to-device (D2D) communication including: receiving, from a first terminal, a measurement report including a D2D identification (D2D ID) of a second terminal that performs D2D communication with the first terminal” (See para [0009])).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Baek into the teachings of Kataria because that would have provided a method and an apparatus for switching between paths in a wireless communication system for supporting device-to-device (D2D) communication as suggested by Baek (See para [0007]).
But Kataria and Baek do not explicitly teach:
wherein the switch is to couple to the host processor via a Peripheral Component Interconnect Express (PCIe) link.
However, Freking discloses:
wherein the switch is to couple to the host processor via a Peripheral Component Interconnect Express (PCIe) link (FIG. 8 and associated text, such as, “An exemplary embodiment is shown in FIG. 8, which depicts a block diagram of an example system configured with a PCIe broadcast component, according to an embodiment described herein. The system 800 includes a host device 810 and a plurality of peripheral devices 840, connected via a distributed switch 805. In the depicted embodiment, the host device 810 is connected to the distributed switch 805 via a PCIe link 850, and the peripheral devices 840 are connected via PCIe link 860.” See para [0088])).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Freking into the teachings of Kataria and Baek because that would have provided techniques for broadcasting a message within a distributed switch via a PCIe link and the peripheral devices 840 are connected via PCIe link 860 as suggested by Freking (See para [0088]).
Regarding claim 12:
The rejection of claim 9 is incorporated, Kataria further comprising receiving, in the switch, the configuration message from the first device (FIG. 1 and associated text, such as, “After receiving request 133, server computer system 115 uses the included information to authenticate a user of debug system 110. Server computer system 115 uses user credentials 512 to identify and authenticate the user of debug system 110. After a successful authentication, server computer system 115 uses the identity of the user and the device information to identify relevant policies in policies 420. Policies 420 includes one or more policies that are used by server computer system 115 to determine which debug features of device 105 the user will be permitted to access.” (See para [0078])), [[the first device comprising a first Peripheral Component Interconnect Express (PCIe) device and the second device comprising a second PCIe device or a Compute Express Link (CXL) device]].
But Kataria does not explicitly teach:
the first device comprising a first Peripheral Component Interconnect Express (PCIe) device and the second device comprising a second PCIe device or a Compute Express Link (CXL) device.
However, Freking discloses:
the first device comprising a first Peripheral Component Interconnect Express (PCIe) device and the second device comprising a second PCIe device or a Compute Express Link (CXL) device (FIG. 8 and associated text, such as, “An exemplary embodiment is shown in FIG. 8, which depicts a block diagram of an example system configured with a PCIe broadcast component, according to an embodiment described herein. The system 800 includes a host device 810 and a plurality of peripheral devices 840, connected via a distributed switch 805. In the depicted embodiment, the host device 810 is connected to the distributed switch 805 via a PCIe link 850, and the peripheral devices 840 are connected via PCIe link 860.” See para [0088])).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Freking into the teachings of Kataria and Baek because that would have provided techniques for broadcasting a message within a distributed switch via a PCIe link and the peripheral devices 840 are connected via PCIe link 860 as suggested by Freking (See para [0088]).
Regarding claim 17:
The rejection of claim 16 is incorporated, but Kataria does not explicitly teach:
wherein the switch is to communicate a debug message comprising at least one Peripheral Component Interconnect Express (PCIe) packet comprising the debug message, the debug message of a debug protocol and wrapped within the at least one PCIe packet.
However, Freking discloses:
wherein the switch is to communicate a debug message comprising at least one Peripheral Component Interconnect Express (PCIe) packet comprising the debug message, the debug message of a debug protocol and wrapped within the at least one PCIe packet (FIG. 8 and associated text, such as, “An exemplary embodiment is shown in FIG. 8, which depicts a block diagram of an example system configured with a PCIe broadcast component, according to an embodiment described herein. The system 800 includes a host device 810 and a plurality of peripheral devices 840, connected via a distributed switch 805. In the depicted embodiment, the host device 810 is connected to the distributed switch 805 via a PCIe link 850, and the peripheral devices 840 are connected via PCIe link 860.” See para [0088])).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Freking into the teachings of Kataria and Baek because that would have provided techniques for broadcasting a message within a distributed switch via a PCIe link and the peripheral devices 840 are connected via PCIe link 860 as suggested by Freking (See para [0088]).
Regarding claim 18:
The rejection of claim 16 is incorporated, Kataria further discloses wherein the first device is to send a debug command to the second device via the switch (FIG. 1 and associated text, such as, “The determination that a second computing device has been connected to device 105 may be using a variety of techniques. For example, debug interface 226 may include circuits capable of detecting a switch between cables that are physically coupled to device 105. The act of disconnecting and reconnecting cables may generate one or more anomalies that are detected by such circuits in debug interface 226. In other attacks, a cable used to connect device 105 to debug system 110 may include electronic switching circuits that, when activated, re-route communications to a computer system of the second party. In such cases, impedances between device 105 and the computer system of the second party may be different than when debug system 110 was connected. Debug interface 226 may be capable of detecting such impedance changes, for example, by differences in received voltage levels and/or timing of transitions on received signals” (see para [0051])), [[the debug command comprising a Peripheral Component Interconnect Express (PCIe) packet including a header indication of a debug offload and command information]].
But Kataria does not explicitly teach:
the debug command comprising a Peripheral Component Interconnect Express (PCIe) packet including a header indication of a debug offload and command information.
However, Freking discloses:
the debug command comprising a Peripheral Component Interconnect Express (PCIe) packet including a header indication of a debug offload and command information (FIG. 8 and associated text, such as, “An exemplary embodiment is shown in FIG. 8, which depicts a block diagram of an example system configured with a PCIe broadcast component, according to an embodiment described herein. The system 800 includes a host device 810 and a plurality of peripheral devices 840, connected via a distributed switch 805. In the depicted embodiment, the host device 810 is connected to the distributed switch 805 via a PCIe link 850, and the peripheral devices 840 are connected via PCIe link 860.” See para [0088])).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Freking into the teachings of Kataria and Baek because that would have provided techniques for broadcasting a message within a distributed switch via a PCIe link and the peripheral devices 840 are connected via PCIe link 860 as suggested by Freking (See para [0088]).
Regarding claim 19:
The rejection of claim 18 is incorporated, Kataria further discloses wherein the second device is to send a debug response to the first device via the switch, the debug response comprising another PCIe packet including the header indication of the debug offload and a payload comprising debug data ((FIG. 1 and associated text, such as, “The determination that a second computing device has been connected to device 105 may be using a variety of techniques. For example, debug interface 226 may include circuits capable of detecting a switch between cables that are physically coupled to device 105. The act of disconnecting and reconnecting cables may generate one or more anomalies that are detected by such circuits in debug interface 226. In other attacks, a cable used to connect device 105 to debug system 110 may include electronic switching circuits that, when activated, re-route communications to a computer system of the second party. In such cases, impedances between device 105 and the computer system of the second party may be different than when debug system 110 was connected. Debug interface 226 may be capable of detecting such impedance changes, for example, by differences in received voltage levels and/or timing of transitions on received signals…To mitigate against a second party intercepting internet traffic between device 105 and debug system 110, debug system 110 may include, in some embodiments, an identifier, based on, e.g., a serial number of included hardware or software, that is included with some or all of debugging commands sent by debug system 110. A switch to a computer system of the second party may result in a different identifier. In other embodiments, debug system 110 and validation circuit 122 are configured to establish a cryptographic channel, based on mutual authentication as established through implementation of industry standard or proprietary protocols” (see paras [0051] – [0052])).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANH THI MINH BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-1976. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7-3.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hyung S. Sough can be reached at 571-272-6799. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HANH THI-MINH BUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192 February 5th, 2026